If climate scientists have been "bought off" in the climate change debate,what other scientists can be ignored?

Question

If climate scientists have been "bought off" in the climate change debate,what other scientists can be ignored?

Answer 1

The claim is worse than scientists being corrupt: it is that all the science journals are corrupt. Proof of global warming is documented in studies published the journals. The journals are how researchers share learning with each other and how science is advanced. If the journals have too little integrity to publish only high quality scientific research, then all science is stopped. If a researcher in any field cannot read another study and have confidence that it was performed as described then that researcher cannot build on the study.



These attacks on the integrity of the journals are silly. They are only generated by scientific ignorants who want to shoot the messenger because they don't like the message.

Answer 2

You can ignore all geologists and biologists, since the evil evolution lobby as bought them off.

You can ignore all doctors and scientists in the medical field, since the pharmaceutical companies have bought them off.

You can ignore all astronomers and NASA since they are part of the heliocentric conspiracy.

Ect.



There's some crazy group that thinks there's a vast conspiracy of scientists. Of course, these groups don't know how scientists actually behave...

Answer 3

some in the pharmaceutical/drug area I suppose, but on climate some of these scientists are philosophically opposed to government interference and regulation. Nothing to do with monet, just red neck attitudes. Fred Singer who's still maintaining there is no link between smoke and cancer, or acid rain and emissions is one of those.



you can esaly check sources at the sites below. Science does not work in newspapers and fox news, go to a university library and read.

Answer 4

Looks like Nightwind doesn't even read the links he posts. The link to the NOAA sites states that stratospheric water vapour is decreasing, not tropospheric, causing the warming due to an increased greenhouse effect to slow down. He also does not seem to understand the water cycle, in that water vapour has a saturation point based on temperature. As that temperature decreases and that saturation level declines the excess water vapour condenses and rains out. The amount of water vapour in an air parcel is dependent on temperature. The rest of his links are merely news stories, blog articles, or outright lies and misunderstandings. One of the lies he posts is a link to the OISM project spoken about here:



http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ



Before people start stating complete nonsense that has already been debunked I would suggest doing more study, and actually reading the links first.



It also doesn;t surprised me that we have a anti-evolutionist in the crowd as well.

Answer 5

properly they did assume that they could have the skill to scare a gaggle of persons, yet i'm unsure this counts. Gringo, enable me take a stab at it. a million.) The temp are quite greater yet no the place close to the predicted. awaiting a huge advance in the previous 15 years and not even seeing a statistically substantial advance is hardly a victory and certianly would not stay as much as the scare-mongering predictions. 2.) Glaciers have been melting by way of fact the final ice age. The quantities have been probably quite increasing, yet of course from the himalayan incedent, as quickly as returned scare-mongering. 3.) Sea water getting warmer? you have have been given to be kidding me, is it no longer from the sea water the place they're lacking 30% of the warming. Has it no longer been the seas that have not been increasing as rapid as they projected. in actuality each and all of the warming graph you heaters tutor exclude the sea. Why? probable by way of fact exhibiting that makes all of Hansen's predictions look absurd. 4.) Sea point increasing? Are you kidding <3mm/365 days is hardly a upward push and positively would not extra as much as the AGW tens of millions of refugees, nor the streets of manhattan flooding. humorous that on well-known the sea point has been risign with the aid of approximately 2 mm/365 days by way of fact the ice age. Wow the upward push is staggering! or quite noticable. 5.) Your could desire to be kidding with this one, Please tell me you're no longer so ignorant as to forget approximately that the variety of hurricanes a 365 days has certainly long previous down. You heaters communicate concerning to the climate isn't the climate. The why is it that everytime they say "it quite is the main rain for fifty years, or favourite in 70 years or maximum snow in 60 years. guess what? Now what number places are going to have 50-365 days checklist interior of five years? only keep on utilising the hype nevertheless. Please do no longer certainly use information to make certain if there are certainly extra unusual climate activities, noepo only proceed scaremongering. the actual sick area is that an basic circulate in the direction of nuclear skill and confirm your CO2 taxes coem with help in the income tax, you could have the skill to do some thing that I and fairly some different could help. it quite is okay nevertheless, you all are of course prevailing with your scare-mongering. by way of fact of this plenty AGW law is going with the aid of actual?

Answer 6

You should watch out for any anti global warming campaign that tries to undermine credible scientists whose research has unequivocally found that man made global warming is real.

Big oil, big mining and big multinational conglomerates don't usually fund scientific research and projects that undermines their business and potential for horrendous sums of profit.

If the corporate heads funded such works that undermined their ability to make as much profit as they possibly can then whoever it is, they will get the swift flick back to the unemployment line.

So it only makes sense for a corporatist to be selfish and totally disregard any warnings that tells them the truth about global warming because its simply bad for business.

That is why you see many anti global warming groups and affiliated scientists being funded by these huge corporations to skew their scientific report in favor of dismissing global warming as a fraud.

They have succeeded to some extent because the irresponsible and corrupt members of government are still delaying the implementation of noteworthy solutions because they know that without corporate funding of their next election campaign, they will lose their seats and all the perks that come with being re-elected.

Government is all about making money and economics is the only thing they are interested in at the expense of other social concerns that are just as important.

So essentially our governments have become just another corporation.

Answer 7

The notion that climate scientists have been “bought off” appears to be nothing more than a diversionary tactic orchestrated by people who are incapable of refuting the science of global warming. Instead they resort to a almost incessant barrage of spurious claims levelled against numerous scientists, either individually or collectively.



Despite all the noise and protestations coming from those who make such claims, they have never managed to substantiate them. In every single case where they have sought to bring actions against the scientists – either through the judiciary or independent investigations – their actions have failed and time and time again the accused scientists have been wholly exonerated.



Perhaps the next time that someone tells you that scientists have been bought off, you could enquire as to which scientists, who has bought them off, what evidence supports such claims etc. You will find that your requests go unanswered, quite simply because such claims are totally groundless.



Such claims also conveniently overlook the fact that climate change is a multi-disciplinary subject and one for which the evidence is apparent in a wide range of scientific fields. Evidence for climate change can be found in botanics, dendrology, astrophysics, atmospheric chemistry, epidemiology, palaeontology, marine biology, glaciology and many more disciplines. For such a claim to have validity then it follows that it would be necessary to have “bought off” almost the entire global scientific community.



Sadly, it is a truly ridiculous claim, one that has absolutely no validity to it, can not be substantiated in any way, shape or form and appears to have emanated from those who are incapable of forming a rational and considered counter argument to the theory of global warming.

Answer 8

We live in the real world where science has to be marketed so someone will fund it.

Answer 9

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dhz_u1hgDmoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=breast+implants+scientific+fraud&source=bl&ots=dOrsJq-QnO&sig=fD40YFVuk5yRiG7IyeQVdhhMOy0&hl=en&ei=mzDoTLafN4WKlwf_8IzXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=breast%20implants%20scientific%20fraud&f=false



Don't just buy into the horsesqueeze about the scientific process placing scientific findings above reproach.



Oh and uh, sounds like a straw man argument to me...

Answer 10

So, climate scientists have been bought off, where is proof denier scientists have not been bought off either? Coal companies, petroleum companies, car companies,.... they got tons of money either. It is unlikely they wont (have not) use their money to defend their business.



So, there is no proof of climate change, where is proof there is no climate change?

Answer 11

We live in the real world where science has to be marketed so someone will fund it.



Usually when scientists claim to be on the virge of discovering some holy grail - no matter how much money they get for research grants, usually this turns out to be a flash in the pan.



Anyone claiming to be on the virge of discovering life on Mars, a cure for cancer or controlled nuclear fusion (especially cold fusion) should be treated with healthy scepticism.

Answer 12

Look for the finger of God.Is True Understanding an intellectual process? Can any man place the line which bounds the physical on one side, the supernatural on the other? Do not our estimates of the extent and the duration of things depend altogether on our point of view? Were we set in the midst of the great nebula of Orion, how transcendently magnificent the scene! The vast transformations, the condensations of a fiery mist into worlds, might seem worthy of the immediate presence, the supervision of God; We explain all the facts connected with it by physical laws, and perhaps should reverentially hesitate to call into operation the finger of God.“Is there not something profoundly impious in this? Are we not excluding Almighty God from the world he has made?”

Many Blessings!

Answer 13

The story that scientists have been bought off or are doing this for the funding is just a story deniers have many stories, in some it's all communists in others it's the U.N. or Governments wanting world control in others it's all Al Gore



Deniers offer as proof either nothing, or some, like Nightwind will list various blogs and newspaper stories (but usually always from the same set of denier friendly newspapers or journalist like Dellingpole. The one scientific from NOAA just seem to demonstrate he doesn't really understand what it actually is talking about.

Climategate seems to also still ring his bell, although those interested in the truth should look up the full emails rather than the edited highlights taken out of context that deniers tried to use, it shows how weak they really are and why the inquiry cleared the scientists involved.

There are several easy counters to the money argument

1) With the qualification they have, most climate scientists could get admin jobs where their physics backgrounds are required (I know some who have done this) this is less hours, easier work and far more money

2) People interested in money usual go into fields like law and policy the sort of fields that earn many times what a scientist earns, the sort of people who work for denial groups like Heartland institute, that come up with these silly theories

3) What is the funding allowed to be used, for deniers seem to think it is money a scientist can keep (a scientist who did that would very quickly end up in jail) Project monies are highly audited e.g.

I purchase equipment for a mixed group of scientists who study the climate and upper atmosphere of Antarctica, each of their projects has a cost code and I have to use those codes to tally my official credit card each month even on items worth only a few dollars.

4) What actual funding, the group I work for is expected to produce the same volume of work on a budget that has had real term successive cuts for nearly a decade as have the other two main Australia agencies that study climate and weather and from what visiting scientists have told us this is also the case in the U.K and the U.S.

5) The concept that thousands of scientists would spend years of their lives studying highly complex areas of physics to then just pretend for years more that they are studying something just to get some money is, frankly laughable, anyone familiar with real scientists would know that.

I can see that you might be able to get a small group but they would need to be at a point were they have nothing to lose which would usually mean retied and the only small group I can think off that are retired and vocal in their views on climate change make up most of the denier camp not the AGW camp and unlike climate scientists these denier scientists are no longer audited by employers and they get to actually keep the money they are paid by denial groups.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653-climate-myths-its-all-a-conspiracy.html

Answer 14

This is why science and scientists should have NEVER gone up that slippery slope. When you can't report THE TRUTH, your usless as a scientist, and that makes many others wonder who else is "bought off". Will we see a future riddles with deaths due to slacking safety scientists ? Or perhaps more or the many flawed products bought from China killing our pets and poisoning our kids ? Where is the ***Damn integrity ? The Standards ?

It seems that political correctness and the liberal mentality that "the ends justifies the means" is acceptable regardless of safety, laws, regulations or standards.

Its almost coming to the point that we have to rely on people like Joe Stack to express the anger of the people toward government and compromised institutions.



After all, your right. We found that the IPCC was basically lying to us based on an agenda. Although they're cover is that they were just 'inaccurate'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12778



We then witnessed ClimateGate which is just the so called scientists end of it, that doesn't even go into the fact that the temperature stations themselves that the data was collected from aren't even up to government standards. They've had electronics installed, they've been painted with the wrong paint, they've been found next to blacktop parking areas instead of 100 yards from everything.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Then there is the increasing number of reports we've seen regarding GW deniers having thier grants taken away, political and personal threats and attacks. And now that many have banded together to tell the world the truth.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734

California is being destroyed by a CARB board for instance. An out of control committee that is driving business out of the state and basing thier "go green" initiatives on lies from a fake scientist with a fake degree.

http://www.sccaweb.com/magazine/March-April_2010_science.htm

Even when thier own economists say they are out of control and unrealistic about expectations

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/21/EDGM1FGPV9.DTL

Then you have reputable science organizations like the NOAA whom is warning that it is the water vapor in the statosphere NOT CO2 that is responsible for the heating and cooling, but the eco freaks don't seem to be listening (probably because they know they can scam us and government on the whole notion that they can tax us more)

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html

Now i'm not saying to litter or stop conserving energy, but when it is industry and technology that determines what advances we make, why is the government and the self-righteous eco freaks trying to lump this burden upon the citizens of this nation ? And violating our liberties and Constitutional rights to do so ?

Answer 15

Yeah, it's the climate scientists that have been bought off, and not the politicians or talk show hosts or coal company presidents.



That's real likely.

Answer 16

"Buying off" can take the form of promotions and grants for those who toe the party line. In addition, there are negative sanctions against critics, such as refusal of publication and blocking tenure and promotion.



Other fields where this goes on: Phonics (now largely reopened to scientific inquiry), causes of homosexuality, and Darwinism.



Scientists can be sinners, too.



Cheers,

Bruce

Answer 17

The environmental groups called it global warming the media only copied them. Then the environmental groups changed to global climate change when it came out there has been global cooling going on. As for scientist being bought off do you think anti-global climate change scientist would get grants from the government to do studies? Money comes from many sources.

Answer 18

Any that fake data to gain notoriety.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-scientists-significantly-publish-fake.html

Answer 19

Any scientists that works for a government and there manipulated data.

Answer 20

None stick out.



There aren't many scientific issues that are hot-button political issues that politicians are willing to just throw money at. But if you're worried about that issue, that's where you should start looking.



The science around smoking, is possibly corrupt, or alternative energy.